Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

243 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10739

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 673 (Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group, 243 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered September 24, 1996, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the defendants to accept the response to Item 3 of the CPLR 3101 (d) expert disclosure demand and for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose, among other information, “the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify”. The conclusory statement in the plaintiffs’ supplemental response to Item 3 of the defendants’ demand for expert information failed to satisfy the statutory requirement (see, Chapman v State of New York, 189 AD2d 1075; Brossoit v O’Brien, 169 AD2d 1019). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiffs to provide a further response. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered September 24, 1996, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the defendants to accept the response to Item 3 of the CPLR 3101 (d) expert disclosure demand and for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose, among other information, “the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify”. The conclusory statement in the plaintiffs’ supplemental response to Item 3 of the defendants’ demand for expert information failed to satisfy the statutory requirement (see, Chapman v State of New York, 189 AD2d 1075; Brossoit v O’Brien, 169 AD2d 1019). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiffs to provide a further response. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curatola-v-staten-island-medical-group-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack